jawlz

bhodilee wrote:You don't understand the level of dislike at play here. While I don't actively wish this person harm, I wouldn't be sad if they came to harm. Plus, I hate listening to stupid people talk about anything, much less something they can't possibly comprehend.

Ah, yes... the spite vote. Honestly, I wish pundits would talk more about who's going to win the spite vote; who knows, it might be the one thing everyone's missed that could predict election outcomes with 99% accuracy.

SonomaBouliste

bhodilee wrote:I'm giddy for tomorrow night. I always stay up and watch until a winner is declared. I've been obsessed with it since 1984(83 I guess) when I was a little kid and listened to the radio all night and tried to visualize the map. I even had a puzzle of US states and I'd put the state in it's place as it was called. It was the most exciting thing ever! I was 7 in 1983.

So you were born the year I switched channels just in time to hear Barbara Walters say, "In Cowawado, with fifty thwee percent of the pwecincts weporting...". I think I was laughing too hard to hear the rest.

bhodilee

SonomaBouliste wrote:So you were born the year I switched channels just in time to hear Barbara Walters say, "In Cowawado, with fifty thwee percent of the pwecincts weporting...". I think I was laughing too hard to hear the rest.

if that was 1976 then yes

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

rpm

SonomaBouliste wrote:So you were born the year I switched channels just in time to hear Barbara Walters say, "In Cowawado, with fifty thwee percent of the pwecincts weporting...". I think I was laughing too hard to hear the rest.

chemvictim

rpm wrote:I should probably figure out if I could be admitted on motion.... I don't like being so far from the sea, but I think it's going to be a whole lot worse before it gets better. Expect a depression.

If the American people really want to put the looters in charge again, it's time to go Galt.

rpm

DEMOCRACY. The theory that two thieves will steal less than one, and three less than two, and for less than three, asn so on ad infinitum; the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

H.L. Mencken, A Book of Burlesques (Knopf 1916)

This really is goodbye to this thread for me. I may lurk, but I simply can't continue to engage anymore. It's too depressing. There is really no point in trying to explain liberty to people who don't understand what it means.

bhodilee

rpm wrote:I should probably figure out if I could be admitted on motion.... I don't like being so far from the sea, but I think it's going to be a whole lot worse before it gets better. Expect a depression.

If the American people really want to put the looters in charge again, it's time to go Galt.

I'm sure there are residency restrictions. You'll be safe by the sea.

I'm not expecting a depression. Things are trending up, they'll continue to trend up so long as congress gets their promises together this next month and a half. Even then, the fiscal cliff isn't really. They have options. What I hope happens is the house says, well we're stuck with him, might as well try to work with him as best we can.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

bhodilee

This really is goodbye to this thread for me. I may lurk, but I simply can't continue to engage anymore. It's too depressing. There is really no point in trying to explain liberty to people who don't understand what it means.

Yes, well, I'm not offended by that at all. Guess I'll go back to my little red book I got from Mao.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

jawlz

bhodilee wrote:Yes, well, I'm not offended by that at all. Guess I'll go back to my little red book I got from Mao.

I don't know how much of RPM's last post was intended for you - should he wish to clarify he certainly can - but do consider the context in which it was posted. It was posted by a level-headed person of reasonable mind who is a classical liberal, and who has taken the time to reasonably and logically explain his views and the history behind them here on this board.

We just saw an incumbent president who is hostile to the ideas of classical liberalism elected, after presiding over 4 of the worst years economically many of us have ever seen, and who has championed and pushed into effect a massive healthcare bill - despite its own unpopularity - that it so antithetical to the notions of a limited federal government as to have been unthinkable a decade ago.

This signifies a change in this country's politics (in my eyes, anyways) at least as great as that brought about by the Reagan Revolution in the 80s, in exactly the opposite direction. It is profoundly depressing to be living through if you hold classically liberal ideas.

MarkDaSpark

jawlz wrote:I don't know how much of RPM's last post was intended for you - should he wish to clarify he certainly can - but do consider the context in which it was posted. It was posted by a level-headed person of reasonable mind who is a classical liberal, and who has taken the time to reasonably and logically explain his views and the history behind them here on this board.

We just saw an incumbent president who is hostile to the ideas of classical liberalism elected, after presiding over 4 of the worst years economically many of us have ever seen, and who has championed and pushed into effect a massive healthcare bill - despite its own unpopularity - that it so antithetical to the notions of a limited federal government as to have been unthinkable a decade ago.

This signifies a change in this counntry's politics (in my eyes, anyways) at least as great as that brought about by the Reagan Revolution in the 80s, in exactly the opposite direction. It is profoundly depressing to be living through if you hold classically liberal ideas.

I read somewhere that that is exactly what Obama wanted, to reverse the Reagan Revolution. Sadly, we shall reap the seeds of the 47%.

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee

jawlz wrote:I don't know how much of RPM's last post was intended for you - should he wish to clarify he certainly can - but do consider the context in which it was posted. It was posted by a level-headed person of reasonable mind who is a classical liberal, and who has taken the time to reasonably and logically explain his views and the history behind them here on this board.

We just saw an incumbent president who is hostile to the ideas of classical liberalism elected, after presiding over 4 of the worst years economically many of us have ever seen, and who has championed and pushed into effect a massive healthcare bill - despite its own unpopularity - that it so antithetical to the notions of a limited federal government as to have been unthinkable a decade ago.

This signifies a change in this counntry's politics (in my eyes, anyways) at least as great as that brought about by the Reagan Revolution in the 80s, in exactly the opposite direction. It is profoundly depressing to be living through if you hold classically liberal ideas.

No worries, I'm not actually offended. I think he'll be back to teach, at least I hope so,as I've learned a lot over four years and three threads. Just wanted to point out that in my view, we're not the ones he's talking about (I think), So don't leave.

Plus you know me, I never miss a chance at a joke.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

chemvictim

For what it's worth. I've made my concerns with the Republican party well known (and will continue to do so). However, thanks partially to the ummmm...alternative viewpoints I've been exposed to here, together with my fears of my new state becoming California-esque, I voted for THREE TIMES the number of R's than D's, whereas a few years ago I might have voted straight D. I don't always agree with what you say, but I do listen and try my best to understand what the hell you're talking about.

I really thought Romney was going to win. Shows what I know. Ha! The Republican party can do better than they did this time 'round.

edlada

This really is goodbye to this thread for me. I may lurk, but I simply can't continue to engage anymore. It's too depressing. There is really no point in trying to explain liberty to people who don't understand what it means.

Sure, and Nixon claimed something similar in 1962 and look what happened!

The election was the Republican's to lose and they did it in typical spectacular fashion (i.e. Paul Ryan).

We'll see what happens four years from now, but I heard that Mitch McConnell said his number one goal to make sure Obama is only a two term president.

bhodilee

edlada wrote:Sure, and Nixon claimed something similar in 1962 and look what happened!

The election was the Republican's to lose and they did it in typical spectacular fashion (i.e. Paul Ryan).

We'll see what happens four years from now, but I heard that Mitch McConnell said his number one goal to make sure Obama is only a two term president.

That's pretty funny. They lost because they thought all the white people would vote Romney, and they didn't. Unless the Republican's move away from the extreme right that they've put forth as candidates (not a shock that Mitt got the nod, he was a weak candidate, but the only moderate in the bunch) or start campaigning in Spanish, they're not going to do well in Presidential elections. Now, I think they're smart and I think they'll realize this and even the super conservative's will outwardly appear more moderate.

Also, Christie or Ryan will likely be your next president. I love Christie, he's like the Rex Ryan of the political world. Ryan I respect, don't particularly enjoy his social views, but I respect him from a policy standpoint and would absolutely vote for him. In fact, I firmly believe had he been the candidate, we'd have a Republican President today.

Interesting thought, if the Latino vote can swing an election (and apparently, it can) and Latino's are overwhelmingly Catholic, doesn't it make sense to put forth a Republican Catholic Nominee next time around? I would ABSOLUTELY do that if I were them.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

klezman

PetiteSirah wrote:I have zero problem with the woman having all of the say over the existence and termination of the pregnancy.

What I object to his a woman's ability to essentially make a man a financial hostage.

I do remember that some of you are all about not imposing your own religious beliefs on others, especially if there's any sort of financial burden involved.

What if the woman has a one night stand, doesn't tell the man that she's very pro-life, and accidentally gets pregnant? Her "religious beliefs" -- which she may not have even disclosed -- impose a MASSIVE financial burden on the man, something that far dwarfs having to pay $9/month out of pocket for birth control.

Yes, the man "chooses to play". But so does the woman -- and she's the one who knows her body and her mind far better than he does. And unfortunately, as with drunken hookups on campus, one party can be held completely responsible for the events and their outcome, all at the option of the other party.

Couldn't agree more. Unless there's some revolution in medicine it is an inherently asymmetrical problem.

cmaldoon

Though I was rooting for Obama this time, I sincerely hope that the republicans change their tune, get a tidbit more moderate, and put forward a genuine and electable team. I want a centrist republican significantly more than a democrat. Unfortunately the party hasn't been providing one.

jawlz

In CA, we're raising taxes again (boo), keeping the death penalty (meh), fixing 3 strikes (woo), punishing human traffickers more harshly (woo) not labeling food as genetically modified (woo), not changing union donation rules (meh), and bureaucrat stars are being forced to use condoms in LA County (really boo and stupid).

I know that gay marriage is now legal in two more states (WOO!) and two more states relaxed their views on weed (woo).

In CA, Prop 32 was *by far* the most important ballot item in terms of long-term repercussions to the state. It is ridiculous how much control the major labor unions have over politics in this state. They are effectively running the state right now, and with Prop 32 failing, will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Edit - as far as weed goes, unless Obama relaxes his super-aggressive policies against it (he has the DEA working to go after marijuana in places that have legalized it), I'm not sure that changes in state laws will amount to very much. It's funny how most of the pro-pot people I know vote for Democrats, when Obama has been - by a fairly significant margin - one of the most aggressively anti-pot presidents we've seen.

chemvictim

bhodilee wrote:That's pretty funny. They lost because they thought all the white people would vote Romney, and they didn't. Unless the Republican's move away from the extreme right that they've put forth as candidates (not a shock that Mitt got the nod, he was a weak candidate, but the only moderate in the bunch) or start campaigning in Spanish, they're not going to do well in Presidential elections. Now, I think they're smart and I think they'll realize this and even the super conservative's will outwardly appear more moderate.

Also, Christie or Ryan will likely be your next president. I love Christie, he's like the Rex Ryan of the political world. Ryan I respect, don't particularly enjoy his social views, but I respect him from a policy standpoint and would absolutely vote for him. In fact, I firmly believe had he been the candidate, we'd have a Republican President today.

Interesting thought, if the Latino vote can swing an election (and apparently, it can) and Latino's are overwhelmingly Catholic, doesn't it make sense to put forth a Republican Catholic Nominee next time around? I would ABSOLUTELY do that if I were them.

Mitt was moderate, but the party didn't support him properly. Remember Akin's comments? Remember the guy who said the big bang theory, etc. was sent by Satan? Those 2 guys (correct me if I'm wrong) are on the house science committee. They brought negative attention to the party in a big way. Add in several more very strange comments about terrible act and abortion, which were absolutely not necessary to advance an agenda of fiscal responsibility and job creation. The voter ID business might have backfired. There was a perception (right or wrong) that the party was trying to make it more difficult to vote. The voter fraud billboards in minority neighborhoods, same thing. Mitt's 47% comments didn't make many people feel warm and fuzzy. The constant assertion that anybody who supports Obama is a freeloader. Insisting that Democrats hate Jews and God.

The Republicans should have been able to win this one. I have no idea why they thought a constant barrage of insults directed at the people would help.

bhodilee

cmaldoon wrote:Though I was rooting for Obama this time, I sincerely hope that the republicans change their tune, get a tidbit more moderate, and put forward a genuine and electable team. I want a centrist republican significantly more than a democrat. Unfortunately the party hasn't been providing one.

McCain had my vote... Until Palin happened

He still had my vote cause I didn't think he'd die in office. He'd have had my vote this time around as well.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

cmaldoon

bhodilee wrote:He still had my vote cause I didn't think he'd die in office. He'd have had my vote this time around as well.

I was only slightly worried about her taking the presidency. My bigger issue was "what the hell, your first big decision was picking a VP and this is your answer? Seriously?" I no longer had faith in his decision making abilities.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.